>Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias. I recommend _The impossibility of “fairness”: a generalized impossibility result for decisions_[0] and _Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores_[1] [0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.01195.pdf [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.05807v1.pdf
> Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias.
This very high up and is written in a way which would explicitly allow "fair bias". This means activists will have a free hand to use their positions at Google to enforce their vision of political orthodoxy.
On a geopolitical level, it does. It's far better for the world that the United States developed atomic weapons before either Germany or the Soviets did.
The US were the only one to use atomic weapons on a already defeated enemy/at all.
The Japanese were hardly already defeated. Had the bombs not been dropped, the United States would have invaded Japan directly, island by island, until the country surrendered. The loss of life on both sides would have been tremendous.
Source: My grandfather had orders to go and do exactly that when the dropping of the bombs ended the war.
I doubt that Google spelling out their moral stance is intended to convince you right away that they're all good now. It's a public standard that they're setting for themselves. If you think their actions don't match their words, you now have concrete terms and principles to critique and compare with. It's a benchmark to which employees and the public can hold them accountable.
> It's a public standard that they're setting for themselves. They already had a public standard that people actually believed in for a good many years: *Don't be evil." They've been palpably moving away from that each year, and it's been obvious in their statements, documents, as well as actions.
"Don't be evil" is incredibly vague and practically meaningless. What the hell is evil, and since when did everyone agree on what evil means? It's obvious to you that they're getting "evil", it certainly isn't obvious to me.
I'm sure many US employees were against it, and they were rightfully exercising their voice. Google may have offices all over the world, but it's an American company, and like people (Corporations are like people, no?), it must be held responsible for its actions. I would argue that the public should be especially wary of 'global' corporations such as these (Facebook is another one) that suddenly grow a conscience wh…
You appear to be suggesting that the government should be able to compel corporations (and thus their employees, ie. normal people) to work on military technology. That sounds antithetical to a lot of freedoms that we hold dear as Americans. >I would argue that the public should be especially wary of 'global' corporations such as these (Facebook is another one) that suddenly grow a conscience when it suits them. How…
"Google changes its policy to maintain its workforce"
Google, an already known to be duplicitous company, changed its policy to maintain its workforce at the expense of US national interests. That's certainly something to be wary about, as a member of the public.
>Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias. I recommend _The impossibility of “fairness”: a generalized impossibility result for decisions_[0] and _Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores_[1] [0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.01195.pdf [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.05807v1.pdf
'Fairness' isn't a single optimal decision. It's a continuing debate, refreshed by new data and a refined awareness of consequences, especially those unanticipated and unseen.
Google isn't promising that they're done with the question of how to use data justly. They are promising that as the public debate continues over where the line is drawn and redrawn between fair use and abuse of data, they will be a willing participant in that debate, and that they're receptive to abiding by decisions that require compromise on their part. What more do you want?
Yes. I can only refuse to play and hope the Russians et al come to their senses, the United Nations starts to work better, etc. If we go down that road, it will be the end of most of us, if not all of us. We really have no chance against a machine that's decided to shoot us. As a species we need to have zero tolerance for it - we won't be rendered extinct by snazzy terminators, we'll be killed by the 21st century ver…
That’s the problem with mutually assured destruction weapons (which AI bots most surely qualify as). If you accept as a given that at least one faction is building them, then the other factions’ only choices are: 1. Build your own and pray for a Cold War stalemate and 2. Don’t build your own and guarantee you’ll be destroyed.
MAD was based on the concept of the 'Nuclear Club' - the barrier to entry was the mass defect ratio, which you'd have to calculate on your own, and then you'd confront nation-state level expenses of turning that knowledge into practical engineering. It had an inherent cap on the number of possible players. Not saying it was nice, it was just manageable. The barriers to entry here are much lower. For smaller players, lethal drone prices would be at the several hundred dollar range with a six digit investment in infrastructure, and I'd have full confidence in American defense contractors to drive that price much lower, in order to protect their margins, and at scale, they'll mess up their inventory control. The only choice is to recognize as a species this cannot be done, or it will be done. This equation is not about the few agreeing not to kill the many, it is about the many realizing that this is a road to an extinction level event. I don't mean to be dramatic, but I have a system I could make kill if I wanted to, and I paid for the whole thing on credit cards. Its too easy and too efficient. The number of players can't be counted on one hand, it's a tech lone individuals could deploy. If they do then others will, you net an exponential growth rate in deployment, and then the game is over. At the end of the day, all of the pieces are already here - a motivated individual can do a lot of damage, several motivated individuals or groups can get into a squabble and the damage rises exponentially. It is simply not an avenue we can accept. The limit to entry is not financial, it is not technical, it only can be that we must not. I'm pleased Google has defined their ethics as a company, I just argue in this case we need to define our ethics as a species. We cannot build these because if we do they will get loose, they will be used, and it will be a tragedy. We must all agree that arming autonomous machines is beyond the pale, for any one, for any reason. As soon as one is built, your destruction is guaranteed, regardless of whether you too build one. .
Yes. I can only refuse to play and hope the Russians et al come to their senses, the United Nations starts to work better, etc. If we go down that road, it will be the end of most of us, if not all of us. We really have no chance against a machine that's decided to shoot us. As a species we need to have zero tolerance for it - we won't be rendered extinct by snazzy terminators, we'll be killed by the 21st century ver…
This is a bit dramatic though because these robots can't reload themselves. Automated targeting for a single area is miles away from planning strategy, deploying battle groups, etc.
> This is a bit dramatic though because these robots can't reload themselves
Yes. I can only refuse to play and hope the Russians et al come to their senses, the United Nations starts to work better, etc. If we go down that road, it will be the end of most of us, if not all of us. We really have no chance against a machine that's decided to shoot us. As a species we need to have zero tolerance for it - we won't be rendered extinct by snazzy terminators, we'll be killed by the 21st century ver…
This is a bit dramatic though because these robots can't reload themselves. Automated targeting for a single area is miles away from planning strategy, deploying battle groups, etc.
None of that stuff sounds impossible, though. Hard, sure, but well within the bounds of possibility.
> AI applications we will not pursue [...] Technologies that cause or are likely to cause overall harm. [...] Weapons or other technologies This statement will have zero impact on subsequent sensational headlines or posters here claiming Google is making killbots.
In the name of national security Google may or even have to lie.
They never have to lie. But they may have to remain silent.